Over the past several years, a considerble amount of attention has focused on the fact that a rape victim is often twice victimized-- as a victim of sexual assault and as a victim when she testifies in court. The common law rules of evidence in rape cases, which typically facilitate unrestricted admission of testimony about the victim's prior sexual history with third persons (i.e., persons other than the defendant), particularly have come under attack for contributing to this situation. As a result, various legislative reforms have been enacted and a number of states have recently revised their evidentiary rules concerning the admissibility of the victim's prior sexual history with persons other than the accused assailant. The work in progress examines the psycholegal assumptions underlying these recent evidentiary reforms in rape law. Data collection is underway for a large-scale jury simulation experiment involving a two-hour videotaped re-enactment of a consent defense rape case shown to juries comprised of experienced and inexperienced jurors sampled from the jury population of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The experiment addresses: (a) whether the current types of legal reform eliminate or reduce the prejudice which purportedly inheres in the common law rules of evidence; (b) the extent to which experienced and inexperienced adult jurors from the Twin Cities metropolitan area properly (i.e., without prejudice) utilize prior sexual history evidence in a jury deliberation context; and (c) the extent to which the different types of reform interact with the varying degrees of perceived victim consent that characterize rapes and affect their outcome.